From: "Joaquin Bustelo"
> The quote from Louis at the top of this post
> highlights the importance of cadre. But I don't
> know of any way to train and develop cadre save
> through collaboration in a common organization.
> And I don't see where we're going anywhere with
> the current organizations, and especially their
> number and fragmentation.
This is as good a summary of the problem as any.
The next question is: "what exactly are cadres?".
Knowing what they are would probably help us know
where to find them, and what to do with them.
...
The fragmentation thing may end up having to be
overcome the hard way. That is, by building an outfit
that can end up dragging the other groups behind it,
regardless of how much they kick and scream.
This would be best achieved by a group that has the
strongest possible implantation amongst the actually
existing vanguard layers of the working class - the
most conscious elements of the sections of the class
actually in struggle at the moment. In other words,
one whose cadres are genuine leaders of these
struggles.
Furthermore, it should be a group that isn't afraid to
be organised. We know that "principled" separatism
isn't principled, but we should also understand that
"principled" under-organisation isn't principled
either. A party of genuine cadres should be able to
form a genuine collective leadership, with genuinely
democratic functioning. "Real" cadres aren't
conformists or shrinking violets, after all, whatever
their other attributes.
So my approach to all this would be to build a party
based on the vanguard layers that actually exist at
any particular time. But that's just old stuff that's
been around since the time of the Manifesto. The point
is, I guess, that we actually need to do it, and not
just chinwag about it.
Alan Bradley
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com